- Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Centripetal Networks, Inc.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Jan 4, 2023 · IPR2022-00182 · APJ Steven M Amundson · IPR · Rehearing
Denied Patent Owner’s rehearing request; the Board found no abuse of discretion in instituting IPR of claims 1, 24, and 25 on the stated § 103 grounds.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“II. STANDARD OF REVIEW “The burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d) (2022). In a rehearing request, the party challenging the decision “must specifically identify” (1) “all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked” and (2) “the place where each matter was previously addressed” in an earlier submission. Id.; see Consolidated Trial Practice Guide at 90.3 “A rehearing request is not an opportunity for the requesting party to reargue its case or merely to express disagreement with the underlying decision.” MicroSurgical Tech., Inc. v. Regents of Univ. of Colo., PGR2021-00026, Paper 14 at 2 (PTAB Aug. 12, 2021). “Nor is it an opportunity for the moving party to present new arguments that were not in its original submissions.” Id.” slip op. at 3
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › CopyingObjective indicia no nexusDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner does not explain why issue preclusion permits the Board to hold the district court’s finding that Cisco “copied software functionality from the [infringed] patents” against Petitioner. See Prelim. Resp. 16, 54–56; Req. Reh’g 3, 14–15. Issue preclusion “is appropriate only if”: (1) “the issue is identical to one decided in the first action”; (2) “the issue was actually litigated in the first action”; (3) “resolution of the issue was essential to a final judgment in the first action”; and (4) the party defending against preclusion “had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in the first action.” SynQor, Inc. v. Vicor Corp., 988 F.3d 1341, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2021). Patent Owner does not address any of these requirements for issue preclusion. See Prelim. Resp. 16, 54–56; Req. Reh’g 3, 14–15.” slip op. at 13
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“Regarding the policy’s whitelist processing, if the security device determines that a newly received packet with encrypted data is correlated to the hostname corresponding to the whitelisted destination domain, the security device filters the packet by forwarding it to the remote server with the whitelisted destination domain. See Ex. 1004, 7:52–59, 16:36–42; Ex. 1003 ¶ 90; see also Ex. 1004, 6:1–11. Filtering the newly received packet with encrypted data by forwarding it to the remote server with the whitelisted destination domain occurs “without having to decrypt the encrypted secure tunnel session traffic.” Ex. 1004, 5:24–27, 5:35–42, 7:1–9, 11:7–19; see Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 94, 113. Further, filtering the newly received packet with encrypted data by forwarding it to the remote server with the whitelisted destination domain results from applying a packet-filtering rule (a whitelisted destination domain) to the packet. Hence, we disagree with Patent Owner that Buruganahalli’s security devices process whitelisted packets by “forward[ing] the entire encrypted stream without . . . filtering encrypted packets.” See Req. Reh’g 10. We also disagree with Patent Owner that “encrypted packets in whitelisted sessions” are (1) “forwarded without applying any packet-filtering rules” and (2) “allowed uninspected.” See id. at 11 n.1, 13. Regarding the policy’s blacklist processing, if the security device determines that a newly received packet with encrypted data is correlated to the hostname corresponding to the blacklisted destination domain, the security device either blocks the packet (as Patent Owner contends) or filters the packet by forwarding it to a decryption engine. See Ex. 1004, 7:60–67, 9:61–67, 14:33–36, 16:43–48; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 90–91, 94, 97, 108, 118, 127, 137; Req. Reh’g 10–11, 13. Filtering the newly received packet with encrypted data by forwarding it to a decryption engine occurs “without having to decrypt the encrypted secure tunnel session traffic.” Ex. 1004, 5:24–27, 5:35–42, 7:1–9, 11:7–19; see Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 94, 113, 135. Further, filtering the newly received packet with encrypted data by forwarding it to a decryption engine results from applying a packet-filtering rule (a blacklisted destination domain) to the packet and corresponds to limitation [1.g] and the similar limitations in claims 24 and 25. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 109, 134–135. The Institution Decision explained how Buruganahalli’s security devices may filter packets comprising unencrypted data and packets comprising encrypted data according to claims 1, 24, and 25 by applying a whitelist/blacklist policy to the packets. See, e.g., Inst. Dec. 57–60, 66–67, 69–71. As the Institution Decision explained and as discussed above, “for each session packets comprising unencrypted data and packets comprising encrypted data are correlated and filtered based on the hostname (destination domain) extracted from the handshake traffic, and then the correlated and filtered packets are processed separately from packets destined for other domains.” See Inst. Dec. 69–70; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 109, 120–121, 133–135; Ex. 1004, 7:39–67, 8:55–60, 11:47–51, 14:21–33, 14:50–55, 16:32–48. Buruganahalli discloses additional filtering after forwarding a newly received packet with encrypted data to a decryption engine, e.g., as occurs in Buruganahalli’s Figure 3B embodiment. See, e.g., Ex. 1004, 6:17–22, 9:67–10:4, 12:4–64, Fig. 3B. But claims 1, 24, and 25 use the transitional term “comprising.” Ex. 1001, 25:14, 28:59, 29:29–30. Hence, the claims do not “exclude unrecited elements,” such as additional filtering after forwarding a newly received packet with encrypted data to a decryption engine. See Regeneron Pharm., Inc. v. Merus N.V., 864 F.3d 1343, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citing Manual of Patent Examining Procedure § 2111.03).” slip op. at 8
§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 9,917,856 - PTAB · Feb 3, 2021 · IPR2020-01024 · APJ Jeffrey S Smith · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied the Patent Owner’s rehearing request, leaving institution in place after finding no overlooked or misapprehended matter concerning claim construction or the prior-art obviousness showing.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). An abuse of discretion may arise if the decision is based on an erroneous interpretation of law, if a factual finding is not supported by substantial evidence, or if an unreasonable judgment is made in weighing relevant factors. Star Fruits S.N.C. v. U.S., 393 F.3d 1277, 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Arnold P’ship v. Dudas, 362 F.3d 1338, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2004); In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1315–16 (Fed. Cir. 2000). The burdens and requirements of a request for rehearing are stated in 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d): (d) Rehearing. . . . The burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision. The request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply. For the reason discussed below, Patent Owner’s Request for” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble not limitingDecided for petitioner
“preambles of claims 1, 5, and 22 are not like the preamble in the claim in Bio-Rad. Here, unlike Bio-Rad, the preamble recitation of “for use” in the preamble term “for use in a public transportation facility” expresses an intended use. See Opp. 8. Further, in Bio-Rad, the preamble recited a “method for conducting a reaction in plugs in a microfluidic system,” where the terms “a reaction” and “a microfluidic system” were recited in the body of the claim, and were intertwined with other preamble terms such as “conducting.” Bio-Rad, 967 F.3d at 1371. Here, the body of each independent claim does not recite “public transportation facility.” See Opp. 7. Further, the claim term “high voltage power source” is not intertwined with the claim term “for use in a public transportation facility,” because the “high voltage power source” is structurally complete by itself. Here, as in Catalina, “deletion of the disputed phrase [“for use in a public transportation facility”] from the preamble of Claim 1 does not affect the structural definition or operation of the [claimed apparatus] itself.” Catalina, 289 F.3d at 810; accord Opp. 8. In particular, the location or supply of the high voltage power source does not affect the structural definition or operation of the claimed “first power input adapted to be connected to the first standard high voltage power source,” nor any other limitation recited in the body of the claim of the LED light fixture itself. Also here, as in Catalina, “the specification, in its entirety, does not make the location of the [high voltage power source] an additional structure for the claimed [high voltage power source].” Id.; see Decision at 9–11; accord Opp. 3–4. Patent Owner does not show that the Decision overlooked or misapprehended Catalina or Bio-Rad. We deny rehearing on this basis.” slip op. at 4
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner’s contentions are inconsistent with the claims and the Specification. The claims do not separately recite “a high voltage power source” and “a voltage of 450 to 1000 Volts.” Rather, claim 1 recites “a high voltage power source having a voltage of 450 to 1000 Volts.” The Specification discloses that the high voltage power “source 34 can be 450- 1000V direct current.” Ex. 1002, 5:39–40. In reciting “a high voltage power source having a voltage of 450 to 1000 Volts,” claim 1 expressly limits the “high voltage power source” to the disclosed embodiment of a “source [that] can be 450-1000V direct current,” and excludes other embodiments of power sources having a voltage outside of this range. Further, the Specification discloses that the “source,” not the third rail, “can be 450-1000V,” without describing a specific structure that provides the voltage. Ex. 1002, 5:39–40. Contrary to Patent Owner’s contention, the Specification itself describes the high voltage power source in terms of what source can be. Id. Thus, the Decision’s construction of this term is consistent with its usage in the context of the Specification. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“The words of patent claims have the meaning and scope with which they are used in the specification and the prosecution history. The best indicator of claim meaning is its usage in context.”) (internal citations omitted). Patent Owner does not show that we overlooked or misapprehended the meaning of the claimed “high voltage power source having a voltage of 450-1000 Volts” as used in context of the Specification. We deny rehearing on this basis.” slip op. at 8
Claim constructioncites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 10,190,760 - Unified Patents, LLC v. Velos Media, LLCRehearing deniedPTAB · Dec 9, 2020 · IPR2019-00710 · APJ Jason W Melvin · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied rehearing, leaving claims 1, 2, 11, 12, and 22 not shown unpatentable over Chen or Chen and Bao under §103.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“The Decision, however, did not overlook and rather accepted that the DC block group flag was “not necessary (and often redundant).” Dec. 12–13 (quoting Pet. 53). Notwithstanding that proposition, we declined to extend it to compel omitting the DC block group flag and withholding the DC block from the (0,0) inference. Id. at 13. Petitioner faults the Decision’s conclusion because the (0,0) inference cannot be applied if the DC block does not have a group flag (the inference depends on the group flag’s value). See Req. Reh’g 7–8. The Request fails to persuade us that we misapprehended or overlooked Petitioner’s argument. Asserting that the DC block group flag was “unnecessary (and often redundant)” does not compel a conclusion that the DC block group flag would be omitted from the bitstream. The Decision determined that the Petition does not sufficiently justify such a conclusion and we do not agree with the Request’s post hoc view equating “not necessary” with “would be omitted.” See Req. Reh’g 8–9.” slip op. at 3
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › HindsightNot shown unpatentableMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“The Request argues the Petition establishes “it would have been obvious not to include (i.e., omit) a group flag in the bitstream for the DC block” as “one of three ways to reduce the size of coded video.” Req. Reh’g 6 (emphasis omitted) (citing Pet. 54). As an independent basis for modifying Chen, the Petition identifies three potential solutions for reducing coded-video size—“not encoding the significant-coefficient-group flag for the block containing the last significant coefficient, the DC block, and the block whose right neighboring block and lower neighboring block both have non-zero significant-coefficient-group flags.” Pet. 54–55. As support, the Petition cites the challenged patent. Id. at 54 (citing Ex. 1001, 12:6–54). Although the Petition also cites declaration testimony (id. at 55 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 94)), that testimony offers no support beyond that in the Petition. Thus, other than through the challenged patent itself, the Petition does not support the factual underpinning required for an obvious-to-try conclusion. That hindsight approach does not establish a persuasive position.” slip op. at 4
§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 8,964,849 - Cooler Master Co., Ltd. v. Aavid Thermalloy LLCRehearing deniedPTAB · Sep 17, 2020 · IPR2019-00338 · APJ Ken B Barrett · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Cooler Master’s rehearing request, leaving intact the determination that claim 8 was not shown obvious over Morikawa and Takahashi because the petition did not establish the claimed top shoulder.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“II. ANALYSIS A party requesting rehearing bears the burden of showing that the decision should be modified. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). “The request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply.” Id.” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“that “Petitioner has not demonstrated that Morikawa discloses the recited [top shoulder limitation].” Final Dec. 45. In other words, our determination was that Petitioner had not met its burden of proving that a limitation was taught by the prior art, and therefore had not met its burden of proving that the challenged claim is unpatentable.” slip op. at 3
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“In the Final Decision, we stated: Petitioner’s implied construction is that the claimed “shoulder” is the top end of a column. This is inconsistent with the claim language which recites that the “hollow column . . . has a top shoulder disposed near a top end” thus indicating that the top shoulder is not merely the top end of the column but a structure “near” and discernable from the top end of the hollow column.” slip op. at 8
- Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner
“based on a misapprehension of the arguments associated with a figure . . . [from page 57] in the Petition,” and that “the Board incorrectly inferred Petitioner’s ‘implied construction’ for the term, ‘[a top] shoulder,’ in claim 8 of the ’680 patent as ‘the top end of a column.’” Req. Reh’g 1 (citing Final Dec. 45). Petitioner further argues that it “has always and consistently pointed to the corner portions located around the top outer rim of the hollow column as meeting the limitation of ‘a top shoulder,’ as shown [in the two figures from pages 56 and 57 of Petition and reproduced above].” Id. at 5–6.” slip op. at 8
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 7,100,680 - Cooler Master Co., Ltd. v. Aavid Thermalloy LLCRehearing deniedPTAB · Sep 16, 2020 · IPR2019-00334 · APJ Linda E Horner · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Petitioner’s rehearing request, leaving in place its determination that claim 1 was not shown unpatentable over Morikawa, Takahashi, and Nakamura.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“II. STANDARD OF REVIEW A party requesting rehearing bears the burden of showing that the decision should be modified. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). “The request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply.” Id.” slip op. at 2
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner
“criticism of Morikawa’s heat pipe in its Reply, Petitioner failed to provide any expert testimony to support its argument as to how a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand Nakamura. Instead, Petitioner argued that “Nakamura describes some of its advantages over Morikawa’s ‘metal pipe 6’ only” and that “Nakamura is not describing any disadvantages at all associated with Morikawa’s ‘conventional spacer’ by ‘welding and fixing a metal column to upper and lower inner surfaces of the panel.” Pet. Reply 31–32 (citing Nakamura at 4; Morikawa, 4:31‒33). Patent Owner, however, provided expert testimony as to how a person having ordinary skill spacers. PO Resp. 57 (citing Ex. 2002 ¶ 160). We credited this testimony in our Final Decision. Final Dec. 47 (citing PO Resp. 58); id. at 47–48 (agreeing with Patent Owner’s argument).” slip op. at 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“improvement to Morikawa’s heat pipe, and, in fact, found that Nakamura’s teaching of an improvement and criticism of Morikawa’s configuration would have led one having ordinary skill in the art to replace all of Morikawa’s spacers with Nakamura’s concavities. See Final Dec. 47–48 (agreeing with Patent Owner’s arguments as to the manner in which Morikawa would have been modified in light of Nakamura’s disclosure); id. at 69–70 (finding, in the context of independent claim 3, that Petitioner provided adequate reasoning, premised on Nakamura’s criticism, to substitute Nakamura’s concavity for the pipe of Morikawa). Petitioner’s citation to pages 58–59 is misplaced to the extent Petitioner relies on this portion of the Petition for a reason to modify Morikawa to replace only some of Morikawa’s spacers with Nakamura’s concavities. Pages 58–59 of the Petition address Petitioner’s proposed modification of Morikawa to substitute Nakamura’s concavities for Morikawa’s pipes to meet the “depression” limitation found earlier in claim 1. See Pet. 55, 62–63 (Petitioner explaining that the proposed combination is the modification of Morikawa’s pipes “to solve these problems.”). The “spacer” limitation appears later in claim 1 and, similarly, Petitioner’s purported reasoning associated with that spacer limitation appears later in the Petition. See Pet. 71–75. The Petition’s discussion of the earlier “depression” limitation does not include a reason to replace only some of Morikawa’s spacers with Nakamura’s concavities.” slip op. at 5
§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,100,680 - Cooler Master Co., Ltd. v. Aavid Thermalloy LLCRehearing deniedPTAB · Sep 16, 2020 · IPR2019-00337 · APJ Linda E Horner · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied the petitioner’s rehearing request, leaving claim 11 not shown unpatentable because the petition did not adequately explain why only some Morikawa spacers would be replaced with Nakamura depressions.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“As explained in the Final Decision, upon review and consideration of the arguments and evidence submitted by the parties, Petitioner failed to show that the combined teachings of Morikawa and Nakamura would have led one having ordinary skill in the art to the combination of conventional spacers, as discussed in Morikawa, and depressions formed by Nakamura’s concavities, as recited in claim 11. Petitioner’s arguments in the Request for Rehearing do not persuade us that we erred in our application of the facts as presented by Petitioner to the standard for determining obviousness, as set forth in KSR, in finding that Petitioner failed to show unpatentability of claim 11. C. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner has not shown that we misapprehended or overlooked Petitioner’s arguments or evidence in determining that Petitioner did not show by a preponderance of evidence that challenged claim 11 of the ’240 patent is unpatentable.” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“not in accordance with the law.” Request 2; see also id. at 6 (arguing that “Petitioner need only provide ‘a reason’ as to why a [person having ordinary skill in the art] would substitute Nakamura’s depressions for some, but not all, of Morikawa’s columns in Morikawa’s device.”). Petitioner discusses the proposed replacement of Morikawa’s “through path” spacers with Nakamura’s concavities, but Petitioner does not discuss why Morikawa’s remaining spacers would also not be similarly replaced. In other words, as explained above, Petitioner provided no reason in its Petition to explain why one would have modified Morikawa by substituting only some spacers with Nakamura’s concavities, when Nakamura teaches making all of its spacers using abutting concavities. Pet. 88‒89 (citing Pokharna ¶ 93, which cross-references itself); Final Dec. 57 (describing Nakamura). As explained in the Final Decision, upon review and consideration of the arguments and evidence submitted by the parties, Petitioner failed to show that the combined teachings of Morikawa and Nakamura would have led one having ordinary skill in the art to the combination of conventional spacers, as discussed in Morikawa, and depressions formed by Nakamura’s concavities, as recited in claim 11. Petitioner’s arguments in the Request for Rehearing do not persuade us that we erred in our application of the facts as presented by Petitioner to the standard for determining obviousness, as set forth in KSR, in finding that Petitioner failed to show unpatentability of claim 11.” slip op. at 11
- BurdenNot shown unpatentable
“2. Petitioner’s Burden As also explained in the Final Decision, “Petitioner bears the burden of proving unpatentability of the claims challenged in the Petition, and that burden never shifts to Patent Owner. Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015). To prevail, Petitioner must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the challenged claims are unpatentable. 35 U.S.C. § 316(e) (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(d) (2018).” Final Dec. 9.” slip op. at 5
§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,066,240 - Boragen, Inc. v. Syngenta Participations AGRehearing deniedPTAB · Aug 10, 2020 · IPR2020-00124 · APJ Timothy G Majors · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Boragen’s rehearing request and left in place the denial of institution under § 325(d), finding no abuse of discretion.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“whether to institute trial for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). An abuse of discretion may be found if there was an erroneous interpretation of law, a factual finding not supported by substantial evidence, or an unreasonable judgment in weighing relevant factors. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c); Star Fruits S.N.C. v. U.S., 393 F.3d 1277, 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2005); The Arnold Partnership v. Dudas, 362 F.3d 1338, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2004); In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1315–16 (Fed. Cir. 2000). “The burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). The rehearing request “must specifically identify all matters the [requesting] party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply.” Id.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDecided for patent owner
“Petitioner contends the Board “failed to exercise its discretion under 325(d)” (Req. 2), but this is plainly inconsistent with the Decision, because we did exercise discretion under § 325(d) and denied the Petition because it was based on substantially the same prior art as already considered by the Office. See Dec. 6–35 (analyzing, inter alia, the asserted prior art, the prosecution history, declarant testimony, and the precedential Becton, Dickinson factors under a framework explained further in Advanced Bionics, in route to denial under § 325(d)).1 Petitioner continues, arguing the Board “improperly” slip op. at 3
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“expert” may opine on the unpatentability of the challenged claims generally represents one factor that we account for in exercising our discretion under § 325(d) (e.g., insofar as it may comprise “additional evidence” addressing prior art that the Office may have already considered). Becton, Dickinson at 17–18. It is not, however, a super-factor that overrides others in the manner urged by Petitioner that would, in effect, require we institute inter partes review so long as the challenge is accompanied by “new” testimony slip op. at 4
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Other PTAB motions (exclude, strike, seal, additional discovery, rehearing)Denied
“precedential after the Petition was filed, and requests “additional briefing to directly address the Advanced Bionics factors” if this Request is denied. Req. 1 n.1. Petitioner’s request for additional briefing is denied. Additional briefing is unnecessary because the arguments and evidence already submitted by the parties is sufficient for us to make a determination based on the two-part framework in Advanced Bionics. Furthermore, we have reviewed the arguments based on Advanced Bionics submitted by Petitioner on rehearing and do not find them persuasive. Req. 8–10 (“Petitioner highlights such errors herewith separately under the guidelines set forth in Advanced Bionics”). Moreover, Advanced Bionics became precedential six weeks before we denied institution in this case, where discretionary denial” slip op. at 10
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 10,130,096 - Apple Inc. v. Qualcomm Inc.Rehearing deniedPTAB · May 23, 2019 · IPR2018-01270 · APJ Aaron W Moore · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Apple’s rehearing request, leaving institution denied because Apple did not show Samsung disclosed the claimed notification and power-button silencing during an incoming call.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“II. STANDARD OF REVIEW A party requesting rehearing bears the burden of showing that the decision should be modified. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). The party must identify the matters misapprehended or overlooked, and where each matter was addressed in a motion, opposition, or reply. Id. When reconsidering an institution decision, we look for an abuse of discretion, which may be found if there was (1) an erroneous interpretation of law, (2) a factual finding not supported by substantial evidence, or (2) unreasonable judgment in weighing relevant factors. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c); Star Fruits S.N.C. v. U.S., 393 F.3d 1277, 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2005); The Arnold Partnership v. Dudas, 362 F.3d 1338, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2004); In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1315–16 (Fed. Cir. 2000).” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“1006, 32)). We found the cited portions of Samsung to describe (1) that if there was no call already in progress, the user could silence an incoming call with the power button, but neither the in-use information nor call waiting would cause the claimed notification, and (2) that if a call was already in progress, call waiting would display a notification for a new call, but there was nothing to indicate that the user could silence a ‘ring,’ or even the call waiting alert, using the power button. See Decision 16. In other words, the “in-use” notification was insufficient because it was not shown to be displayed while a call was incoming, and the “call waiting” notification was insufficient because it was not shown to be employed at a time a user could use the power button to silence a “ring.”” slip op. at 4
- Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDenied
“New Evidence Petitioner asserts that the “new arguments provided in [the] Request [are] appropriate” because “Petitioners are permitted in a request for rehearing to address inaccurate characterizations that they may not be able” slip op. at 7
- BurdenDecided for patent owner
“distinction,” and the reference need not describe a “separate during incoming calls state.” Instead, the problem is that Samsung’s in-use display is described as showing information that one of skill in the art would expect to be shown after a call has been answered (i.e., the timer), and Petitioner failed to establish that the information would have been displayed before a call was answered. In this proceeding, “the petitioner has the burden from the onset to show with particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable.” Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016). With no showing that the in-use information would be displayed before the call was answered, Petitioner did not carry its burden.” slip op. at 4
NonePatents in suitUS 9,203,940 - L’Oréal USA, Inc. v. University Of MassachusettsRehearing deniedPTAB · Nov 16, 2018 · IPR2018-00779 · APJ David Cotta · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied rehearing and affirmed denial of institution because Petitioner did not show that the Board abused its discretion in construing the adenosine concentration limitation.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“Accordingly, Petitioner has not persuaded us that we have misapprehended or overlooked any matters with respect to our decision to deny institution. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). III. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that Petitioner has not shown that the Board abused its discretion in denying institution of the challenged claims. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). ORDER Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing is denied.” slip op. at 10
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“related grounds: that claims 1–7, and 9 are anticipated by JP ’1532; that claim 4 is obvious over JP ’153; and that claims 1–7 and 9 would have been obvious over the combination of JP ’153 and DE ’1073. Pet. 6–7. We declined to institute inter partes review. Dec.” slip op. at 3
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“adenosine may be topically applied to the epidermal layer of the skin, but also that adenosine so applied will penetrate the epidermis to reach the dermal layer. Dec. 9 (citing Ex. 1002, 5:20–23 (“For topical application, the penetration of the adenosine into skin tissue may be enhanced by a variety of methods known to those of ordinary skill in the art.”)). Topical application of adenosine will, therefore, result in adenosine being brought into contact with both the epidermis and the dermis. As also discussed in the Decision, the specification provides examples in which a concentration of adenosine within the range recited in the claims (10-4 M) is applied directly to dermal cells (fibroblasts), suggesting that the inventors considered it desirable for the dermal cells to receive the claimed concentration of adenosine. Id. In this context, the meaning of claim 1 is clear: adenosine is first topically applied to the epidermal layer of the skin and, only after it penetrates this outer skin layer, is a specific concentration (10-4 M to 10-7 M) of the adenosine “applied” to the dermal cells.” slip op. at 6
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Prosecution history disclaimer / disavowalDisclaimer not foundDecided for patent owner
“A prosecution history disclaimer must be clear and unambiguous. “[W]hile the prosecution history can inform whether the inventor limited the claim scope in the course of prosecution, it often produces ambiguities created by ongoing negotiations between the inventor and the PTO. Therefore, the doctrine of prosecution disclaimer only applies to unambiguous disavowals.” Grober v. Mako Prods., Inc., 686 F.3d 1335, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citing Abbott Labs. v. Sandoz, Inc., 566 F.3d 1282, 1289 (Fed. Cir. 2009)). A “heavy presumption” exists in favor of the ordinary meaning of claim language. Bell Atl. Network Servs., Inc. v. Covad Commc’ns Grp., Inc., 262 F.3d 1258, 1268 (Fed. Cir. 2001). To overcome this presumption, the patentee must “clearly set forth” and “clearly redefine” a claim term away from its ordinary meaning. Id. The disavowal must be “unmistakable” and “unambiguous.” Dealertrack, Inc. v. Huber, 674 F.3d 1315, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2013). This standard is “exacting.” Thorner v. Sony Computer Entm’t Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2012).” slip op. at 7
Claim constructioncites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 6,645,513 - L’Oréal USA, Inc. v. University Of MassachusettsRehearing deniedPTAB · Nov 16, 2018 · IPR2018-00778 · APJ David Cotta · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied rehearing, leaving institution denied for claims 1–7 and 9 because Petitioner did not show an abuse of discretion in the claim construction underlying the denial.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). An abuse of discretion may be found if a decision is based on an erroneous interpretation of law, if a factual finding is not supported by substantial evidence, or if the decision represents an unreasonable judgment in weighing relevant factors. Star Fruits S.N.C. v. U.S., 393 F.3d 1277, 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Arnold P’ship v. Dudas, 362 F.3d 1338, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2004); In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1315–16 (Fed. Cir. 2000). The party requesting rehearing has the burden of showing the decision should be modified, which includes specifically identifying all matters the party believes we misapprehended or overlooked. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d).” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Prosecution history disclaimer / disavowalDisclaimer not foundDecided for patent owner
“A prosecution history disclaimer must be clear and unambiguous. “[W]hile the prosecution history can inform whether the inventor limited the claim scope in the course of prosecution, it often produces ambiguities created by ongoing negotiations between the inventor and the PTO. . . . Therefore, the doctrine of prosecution disclaimer only applies to unambiguous disavowals.” Grober v. Mako Prods., Inc., 686 F.3d 1335, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citing Abbott Labs. v. Sandoz, Inc., 566 F.3d 1282, 1289 (Fed. Cir. 2009)). A “heavy presumption” exists in favor of the ordinary meaning of claim language. Bell Atl. Network Servs., Inc. v. Covad Commc’ns Grp., Inc., 262 F.3d 1258, 1268 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). To overcome this presumption, the patentee must “clearly set forth” and “clearly redefine” a claim term away from its ordinary meaning. Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). The disavowal must be “unmistakable” and “unambiguous.” Dealertrack, Inc. v. Huber, 674 F.3d 1315, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2013). This standard is “exacting.” Thorner v. Sony Computer Entm’t Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2012).” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“As discussed in the Decision, the Specification discloses not only that adenosine may be topically applied to the epidermal layer of the skin, but also that adenosine so applied will penetrate the epidermis to reach the dermal layer. Dec. 10 (citing Ex. 1001, 5:13–14 (“For topical application, the penetration of the adenosine into skin tissue may be enhanced by a variety of methods known to those of ordinary skill in the art.”)). Topical application of adenosine will, therefore, result in adenosine being brought into contact with both the epidermis and the dermis. As also discussed in the Decision, the specification provides examples in which a concentration of adenosine matching the high end recited in the claims (10-4 M) is applied directly to dermal cells (fibroblasts), suggesting that the inventors considered it desirable for the dermal cells to receive the claimed concentration of adenosine. Id. In this context, the meaning of claim 1 is clear: adenosine is first topically applied to the epidermal layer of the skin and, only after it penetrates this outer skin layer, is a specific concentration (10-4 M to 10-7 M) of the adenosine “applied” to the dermal cells.” slip op. at 6
Claim constructioncites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 6,423,327
Holdings, summaries, rulings, issues, outcomes, winners and claim constructions shown for a decision were generated by a large language model reading the opinion. They are a guide to the decision, not the decision. Confirm every one against the court's own text before relying on it. Outcomes read from the patent owner’s side. Party names are extracted from the decision and are missing on about 900 short Director denials and scans, which carry the trial number instead.